Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:45 AM - Re: 2-70 Toggle switch (MikeEasley@aol.com)
2. 06:06 AM - Systems Testing (was Fuel Pump Switch(es)) (Peter Pengilly)
3. 07:06 AM - Re: Systems Testing (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 07:14 AM - Re: Gear Indicator Lights (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 07:23 AM - Re: Systems Testing (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
6. 08:07 AM - Re: Systems Testing (Deems Davis)
7. 08:32 AM - Re: Systems Testing (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
8. 10:12 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 09/16/06 (William Morgan)
9. 10:28 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 09/16/06 (William Morgan)
10. 11:15 AM - Re: Systems Testing (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 12:42 PM - Re: Mic plug / PTT wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 03:30 PM - Cable Tie Mounting Blocks (Jeff Moreau)
13. 04:09 PM - Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks (John McMahon)
14. 04:19 PM - Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks (Bruce Bell)
15. 04:28 PM - Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks (Dave N6030X)
16. 04:47 PM - Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks (OldBob Siegfried)
17. 05:01 PM - Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks (A DeMarzo)
18. 06:43 PM - Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks (Bob White)
19. 07:36 PM - Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks (LRE2@aol.com)
20. 07:51 PM - Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks (Bob McCallum)
21. 08:07 PM - Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks (Harold Kovac)
22. 08:17 PM - Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks ()
23. 08:19 PM - Re: Temperature calibration..... (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
24. 08:43 PM - Re: Temperature calibration..... (Richard E. Tasker)
25. 08:47 PM - radio wires (Dennis Jones)
26. 08:51 PM - Re: Temperature calibration..... (Bob McCallum)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: 2-70 Toggle switch |
John,
I've bought hard to find switches from _www.alliedelec.com_
(http://www.alliedelec.com) several times. Try...
_http://www.alliedelec.com/Search/SearchResults.asp?N=0&Ntk=Primary&Ntt=toggle
+%28on%29-on-%28on%29&sid=450C900033E2617F_
(http://www.alliedelec.com/Search/SearchResults.asp?N=0&Ntk=Primary&Ntt=toggle+(on)-on-(on)&sid=450C900033E2617F
)
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
Lancair ES
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Systems Testing (was Fuel Pump Switch(es)) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Pengilly" <peter@sportingaero.com>
Try writing down a list of things your fuel system must do. Write simple
statements and start with the basics - transfer fuel from the tank to
the carb/injector fuel inlet at xx pressure. Write only one 'feature'
per statement. Think about what you want to happen in unusual situations
or when components fail. Try not to think about your design. You are
creating a set of "Requirements". Include details - must be able to get
at fuel filter easily for servicing - as well as whole system issues -
system must only need servicing yearly. Define words like 'easily'.
There are now two parallel paths to follow. 1) Look at your design to
ensure you have met all of the requirements - be critical (not always
easy). If the design does not meet the requirements then change the
design.
2) Develop a verification or test for each requirement. If a ground test
is too difficult you will now understand any risks you are taking - for
example you may decide to trust the pressure gauge manufacturer's
calibration (most people do). Minimize flight testing, its risky and
getting good data is more difficult than you think. The best way is to
get someone other than the designer to write the tests (your wife may
be?), but that's not always possible.
Be honest with yourself when testing. A second pair of eyes often helps.
Try to keep it all simple.
Yours, Pete
-----Original Message-----
On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Casey
> <glcasey@adelphia.net>
>
> Kevin previously wrote:
>> "If you don't do the test then, someday you may
>> stumble across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the
>> system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the system
>> does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
>
> Good points, but what "assumptions" do you have in mind that should
> be tested?
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Systems Testing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Casey
> <glcasey@adelphia.net>
>
> Kevin previously wrote:
>> "If you don't do the test then, someday you may
>> stumble across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the
>> system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the system
>> does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
>
> Good points, but what "assumptions" do you have in mind that should
> be tested?
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Pengilly"
><peter@sportingaero.com>
>
>Try writing down a list of things your fuel system must do. Write simple
>statements and start with the basics - transfer fuel from the tank to
>the carb/injector fuel inlet at xx pressure. Write only one 'feature'
>per statement. Think about what you want to happen in unusual situations
>or when components fail. Try not to think about your design. You are
>creating a set of "Requirements". Include details - must be able to get
>at fuel filter easily for servicing - as well as whole system issues -
>system must only need servicing yearly. Define words like 'easily'.
>
>There are now two parallel paths to follow. 1) Look at your design to
>ensure you have met all of the requirements - be critical (not always
>easy). If the design does not meet the requirements then change the
>design.
>
>2) Develop a verification or test for each requirement. If a ground test
>is too difficult you will now understand any risks you are taking - for
>example you may decide to trust the pressure gauge manufacturer's
>calibration (most people do). Minimize flight testing, its risky and
>getting good data is more difficult than you think. The best way is to
>get someone other than the designer to write the tests (your wife may
>be?), but that's not always possible.
>
>Be honest with yourself when testing. A second pair of eyes often helps.
>Try to keep it all simple.
>
>Yours, Pete
Pete, thanks for posting this. An excellent illumination
of the thought processes behind setting requirements,
evaluating performance against those requirements, and
conducting a failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) from
which one (1) revises requirements and/or (2) deduces
Plan-B for each necessary item that fails to perform under
Plan-A.
With respect to development of requirements, design, testing
and failure mitigation, I would encourage Listers to publish
their thoughts here on the List. No doubt some folks will be
inclined to evaluate your words with too much emphasis on their
assessment of your lack of skill and knowledge. Expect it to happen
and know that these postings should be summarily ignored.
However, others are willing and able to assist with step/by/step
analysis of simple-ideas with the supporting logic needed for
achieving your design goals. In this manner, we elevate the
skills and knowledge of all who choose to participate.
The OBAM aviation Skunkwerks ranks amongst the largest
and most capable given the huge diversity individuals who
decide to build airplanes. They bring a wealth of knowledge
with them and there's no better place for that resource to
be cultivated and shared than right here on the List.
Bob . . .
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Gear Indicator Lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>>Time: 04:36:32 PM PST US
>>From: Greg Young <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Gear Indicator lights
>>
>> I need some help finding suitable gear indicator lights for a certified ai
>>rcraft, my Navion. I'm doing some cleanup and want to cut a new panel with
>>the gear lights repositioned. The current lights would work except they are
>> circa 1959 and the lenses are disintegrating. They are press-to-test with
>>a sort of mushroom shaped lense. I've gotten a couple replacement lenses fr
>>om my avionics shop junk drawer but would rather source new lights (or lens
>>es if they are still made) rather than depend on the "luck of the drawer" w
>>hen they break again. Anything with Mil, PMA or mfg blessing would make it
>>a logbook entry per my IA but I'm not adverse to doing a 337 to get LED's o
>>r something more modern and aestetically pleasing than MS25041 (ugly and ex
>>pensive). Any help would be appreciated.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Greg Young
Greg. How many and what colors? How are they labeled. I'm
sure that by now, your adventures into the catalogs have
shown that the choices are limited and getting more expensive
all the time. Incandescent lamp fixtures rugged enough to
meet most folks design goals are becoming more rare and
the prices are not attractive.
Consider fabricating a landing gear indicator assembly
using LEDs. Let's talk about your design requirements
and then sort through some ideas. Obviously, you can
replace the existing lamps with brand new, similar
fixtures . . . but perhaps there's a way to use a collection
of much less expensive hardware to produce a new approach
with LEDs . . .
Of course, you may wind up spending more $time$ in
design and fabrication than the simple replacement of
existing fixtures would cost . . . but perhaps you
have an interest in advancing the best-we-know-how-to-do.
Bob . . .
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Systems Testing |
I don't see anything wrong with the designer "writing the test", I see good things
about that in the OBAM world. I'd add though to make the requirements & test
plan/test procedures public so they can be "peer reviewed".
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
> On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Casey
> >
> >
> > Kevin previously wrote:
> >> "If you don't do the test then, someday you may
> >> stumble across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the
> >> system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the system
> >> does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
> >
> > Good points, but what "assumptions" do you have in mind that should
> > be tested?
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Pengilly"
> >
> >
> >Try writing down a list of things your fuel system must do. Write simple
> >statements and start with the basics - transfer fuel from the tank to
> >the carb/injector fuel inlet at xx pressure. Write only one 'feature'
> >per statement. Think about what you want to happen in unusual situations
> >or when components fail. Try not to think about your design. You are
> >creating a set of "Requirements". Include details - must be able to get
> >at fuel filter easily for servicing - as well as whole system issues -
> >system must only need servicing yearly. Define words like 'easily'.
> >
> >There are now two parallel paths to follow. 1) Look at your design to
> >ensure you have met all of the requirements - be critical (not always
> >easy). If the design does not meet the requirements then change the
> >design.
> >
> >2) Develop a verification or test for each requirement. If a ground test
> >is too difficult you will now understand any risks you are taking - for
> >example you may decide to trust the pressure gauge manufacturer's
> >calibration (most people do). Minimize flight testing, its risky and
> >getting good data is more difficult than you think. The best way is to
> >get someone other than the designer to write the tests (your wife may
> >be?), but that's not always possible.
> >
> >Be honest with yourself when testing. A second pair of eyes often helps.
> >Try to keep it all simple.
> >
> >Yours, Pete
>
> Pete, thanks for posting this. An excellent illumination
> of the thought processes behind setting requirements,
> evaluating performance against those requirements, and
> conducting a failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) from
> which one (1) revises requirements and/or (2) deduces
> Plan-B for each necessary item that fails to perform under
> Plan-A.
>
> With respect to development of requirements, design, testing
> and failure mitigation, I would encourage Listers to publish
> their thoughts here on the List. No doubt some folks will be
> inclined to evaluate your words with too much emphasis on their
> assessment of your lack of skill and knowledge. Expect it to happen
> and know that these postings should be summarily ignored.
>
> However, others are willing and able to assist with step/by/step
> analysis of simple-ideas with the supporting logic needed for
> achieving your design goals. In this manner, we elevate the
> skills and knowledge of all who choose to participate.
>
> The OBAM aviation Skunkwerks ranks amongst the largest
> and most capable given the huge diversity individuals who
> decide to build airplanes. They bring a wealth of knowledge
> with them and there's no better place for that resource to
> be cultivated and shared than right here on the List.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>I don't see anything wrong with the designer "writing the test", I see good
things about that in the OBAM world. I'd add though to make the requirements
& test plan/test procedures public so they can be "peer
reviewed".</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Lucky</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> <BR><BR>> --> AeroElectric-List
message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <BR>> <NUCKOLLSR@COX.NET><BR>>
<BR>> On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote: <BR>> <BR>> >
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Casey <BR>> > <GLCASEY@ADELPHIA.NET><BR>>
> <BR>> > Kevin previously wrote: <BR>> >>
"If you don't do the test then, someday you may <BR>> >> stumble
across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the <BR>> >>
system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the system <BR>> >>
does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft. <BR>> > <BR>>
> Good points, but what "assumptions" do you have in mind that should <BR>>
> be tested? <BR>> <BR>> >--> Ae
roElec
tric-List message posted by: "Peter Pengilly" <BR>> ><PETER@SPORTINGAERO.COM>
<BR>> > <BR>> >Try writing down a list of things your fuel system
must do. Write simple <BR>> >statements and start with the basics -
transfer fuel from the tank to <BR>> >the carb/injector fuel inlet at xx
pressure. Write only one 'feature' <BR>> >per statement. Think about what
you want to happen in unusual situations <BR>> >or when components fail.
Try not to think about your design. You are <BR>> >creating a set of
"Requirements". Include details - must be able to get <BR>> >at fuel filter
easily for servicing - as well as whole system issues - <BR>> >system
must only need servicing yearly. Define words like 'easily'. <BR>> >
<BR>> >There are now two parallel paths to follow. 1) Look at your design
to <BR>> >ensure you have met all of the requirements - be critical (not
always <BR>> >easy). If the design does not
meet
the requirements then change the <BR>> >design. <BR>> > <BR>> >2)
Develop a verification or test for each requirement. If a ground test <BR>>
>is too difficult you will now understand any risks you are taking -
for <BR>> >example you may decide to trust the pressure gauge manufacturer's
<BR>> >calibration (most people do). Minimize flight testing, its risky
and <BR>> >getting good data is more difficult than you think. The
best way is to <BR>> >get someone other than the designer to write the tests
(your wife may <BR>> >be?), but that's not always possible. <BR>>
> <BR>> >Be honest with yourself when testing. A second pair of eyes
often helps. <BR>> >Try to keep it all simple. <BR>> > <BR>>
>Yours, Pete <BR>> <BR>> Pete, thanks for posting this. An excellent
illumination <BR>> of the thought processes behind setting requirements, <BR>>
evaluating performance against those requireme
nts, a
nd <BR>> conducting a failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) from <BR>> which
one (1) revises requirements and/or (2) deduces <BR>> Plan-B for each necessary
item that fails to perform under <BR>> Plan-A. <BR>> <BR>> With
respect to development of requirements, design, testing <BR>> and failure
mitigation, I would encourage Listers to publish <BR>> their thoughts here
on the List. No doubt some folks will be <BR>> inclined to evaluate your
words with too much emphasis on their <BR>> assessment of your lack of skill
and knowledge. Expect it to happen <BR>> and know that these postings should
be summarily ignored. <BR>> <BR>> However, others are willing and able
to assist with step/by/step <BR>> analysis of simple-ideas with the supporting
logic needed for <BR>> achieving your design goals. In this manner,
we elevate the <BR>> skills and knowledge of all who choose to participate.
<BR>> <BR>> The OBAM aviation Skunkwerks ranks
among
.matro
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Systems Testing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
There's pretty compelling evidence from industry that strongly suggests
that test plans written by the designers are biased to 'prove' the
design. More often then not this is not a conscious but an unconscious
bias. Someone, who is *equally* expert on the subject who is not
invested in the design writing a test plan will uncover more errors and
uncover them earlier. Mike Fagan @ IBM did some compelling research on
this subject and developed his 'inspection' process for software based
partly upon this principle. Other Quality guru's have done similarly on
manufacturing and other processes.
Deems Davis # 406
Panel/wiring
http://deemsrv10.com/
lucky wrote:
> I don't see anything wrong with the designer "writing the test", I see
> good things about that in the OBAM world. I'd add though to make the
> requirements & test plan/test procedures public so they can be "peer
> reviewed".
>
> Lucky
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >
> >
> > On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote:
> >
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Casey
> > >
> > >
> > > Kevin previously wrote:
> > >> "If you don't do the test then, someday you may
> > >> stumble across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the
> > >> system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the
> system
> > >> does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
> > >
> > > Good points, but what "assumptions" do you have in mind that
> should
> > > be tested?
> >
> > >--> Ae roElec tric-List message posted by: "Peter Pengilly"
> > >
> > >
> > >Try writing down a list of things your fuel system must do.
> Write simple
> > >statements and start with the basics - transfer fuel from the
> tank to
> > >the carb/injector fuel inlet at xx pressure. Write only one
> 'feature'
> > >per statement. Think about what you want to happen in unusual
> situations
> > >or when components fail. Try not to think about your design.
> You are
> > >creating a set of "Requirements". Include details - must be
> able to get
> > >at fuel filter easily for servicing - as well as whole system
> issues -
> > >system must only need servicing yearly. Define words like
> 'easily'.
> > >
> > >There are now two parallel paths to follow. 1) Look at your
> design to
> > >ensure you have met all of the requirements - be critical (not
> always
> > >easy). If the design does not meet the requirements then change
> the
> > >design.
> > >
> > >2) Develop a verification or test for each requirement. If a
> ground test
> > >is too difficult you will now understand any risks you are
> taking - for
> > >example you may decide to trust the pressure gauge manufacturer's
> > >calibration (most people do). Minimize flight testing, its
> risky and
> > >getting good data is more difficult than you think. The best
> way is to
> > >get someone other than the designer to write the tests (your
> wife may
> > >be?), but that's not always possible.
> > >
> > >Be honest with yourself when testing. A second pair of eyes
> often helps.
> > >Try to keep it all simple.
> > >
> > >Yours, Pete
> >
> > Pete, thanks for posting this. An excellent illumination
> > of the thought processes behind setting requirements,
> > evaluating performance against those requireme nts, a nd
> > conducting a failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) from
> > which one (1) revises requirements and/or (2) deduces
> > Plan-B for each necessary item that fails to perform under
> > Plan-A.
> >
> > With respect to development of requirements, design, testing
> > and failure mitigation, I would encourage Listers to publish
> > their thoughts here on the List. No doubt some folks will be
> > inclined to evaluate your words with too much emphasis on their
> > assessment of your lack of skill and knowledge. Expect it to happen
> > and know that these postings should be summarily ignored.
> >
> > However, others are willing and able to assist with step/by/step
> > analysis of simple-ideas with the supporting logic needed for
> > achieving your design goals. In this manner, we elevate the
> > skills and knowledge of all who choose to participate.
> >
> > The OBAM aviation Skunkwerks ranks among .matro
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Systems Testing |
Hence the peer review process. Remember, we're not talking big software program
where our promotions/pay raises are based on how well we are perceived to be
doing. We're talking OBAM with next to no one writing code or making fuel pumps
from scratch. Writing your own draft test plan/test procedure is another chance
to learn something about yourself and your design. Allows you to think
about what you've actually done and find mistakes first. That can be a very satisfying
party of this airplane experience. Peer Reviewing your "drafts" will
add the sanity check. For us OBAM'ers, it's mostly developing system designs
to use off the shelf components and succesfully physically installing them and
ensuring they play well with other components.
Just my two cents and I do this for a living too.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis
>
> There's pretty compelling evidence from industry that strongly suggests
> that test plans written by the designers are biased to 'prove' the
> design. More often then not this is not a conscious but an unconscious
> bias. Someone, who is *equally* expert on the subject who is not
> invested in the design writing a test plan will uncover more errors and
> uncover them earlier. Mike Fagan @ IBM did some compelling research on
> this subject and developed his 'inspection' process for software based
> partly upon this principle. Other Quality guru's have done similarly on
> manufacturing and other processes.
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Panel/wiring
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
>
> lucky wrote:
>
> > I don't see anything wrong with the designer "writing the test", I see
> > good things about that in the OBAM world. I'd add though to make the
> > requirements & test plan/test procedures public so they can be "peer
> > reviewed".
> >
> > Lucky
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> > >
> > >
> > > On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote:
> > >
> > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Casey
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kevin previously wrote:
> > > >> "If you don't do the test then, someday you may
> > > >> stumble across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the
> > > >> system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the
> > system
> > > >> does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > Good points, but what "assumptions" do you have in mind that
> > should
> > > > be tested?
> > >
> > > >--> Ae roElec tric-List message posted by: "Peter Pengilly"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Try writing down a list of things your fuel system must do.
> > Write simple
> > > >statements and start with the basics - transfer fuel from the
> > tank to
> > > >the carb/injector fuel inlet at xx pressure. Write only one
> > 'feature'
> > > >per statement. Think about what you want to happen in unusual
> > situations
> > > >or when components fail. Try not to think about your design.
> > You are
> > > >creating a set of "Requirements". Include details - must be
> > able to get
> > > >at fuel filter easily for servicing - as well as whole system
> > issues -
> > > >system must only need servicing yearly. Define words like
> > 'easily'.
> > > >
> > > >There are now two parallel paths to follow. 1) Look at your
> > design to
> > > >ensure you have met all of the requirements - be critical (not
> > always
> > > >easy). If the design does not meet the requirements then change
> > the
> > > >design.
> > > >
> > > >2) Develop a verification or test for each requirement. If a
> > ground test
> > > >is too difficult you will now understand any risks you are
> > taking - for
> > > >example you may decide to trust the pressure gauge manufacturer's
> > > >calibration (most people do). Minimize flight testing, its
> > risky and
> > > >getting good data is more difficult than you think. The best
> > way is to
> > > >get someone other than the designer to write the tests (your
> > wife may
> > > >be?), but that's not always possible.
> > > >
> > > >Be honest with yourself when testing. A second pair of eyes
> > often helps.
> > > >Try to keep it all simple.
> > > >
> > > >Yours, Pete
> > >
> > > Pete, thanks for posting this. An excellent illumination
> > > of the thought processes behind setting requirements,
> > > evaluating performance against those requireme nts, a nd
> > > conducting a failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) from
> > > which one (1) revises requirements and/or (2) deduces
> > > Plan-B for each necessary item that fails to perform under
> > > Plan-A.
> > >
> > > With respect to development of requirements, design, testing
> > > and failure mitigation, I would encourage Listers to publish
> > > their thoughts here on the List. No doubt some folks will be
> > > inclined to evaluate your words with too much emphasis on their
> > > assessment of your lack of skill and knowledge. Expect it to happen
> > > and know that these postings should be summarily ignored.
> > >
> > > However, others are willing and able to assist with step/by/step
> > > analysis of simple-ideas with the supporting logic needed for
> > > achieving your design goals. In this manner, we elevate the
> > > skills and knowledge of all who choose to participate.
> > >
> > > The OBAM aviation Skunkwerks ranks among .matro
> >
> >*
> >
> >
> >*
> >
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>Hence the peer review process. Remember, we're not talking big software
program where our promotions/pay raises are based on how well we are perceived
to be doing. We're talking OBAM with next to no one writing code or
making fuel pumps from scratch. Writing your own draft test plan/test
procedure is another chance to learn something about yourself and your design. Allows
you to think about what you've actually done and find mistakes
first. That can be a very satisfying party of this airplane
experience. Peer Reviewing your "drafts" will add the sanity check.
For us OBAM'ers, it's mostly developing system designs to use off the shelf
components and succesfully physically installing them and ensuring they play
well with other components.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Just my two cents and I do this for a living too.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: Deems Davis
<deemsdavis@cox.net> <BR><BR>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted
by: Deems Davis <DEEMSDAVIS@COX.NET><BR>> <BR>> There's pretty compelling
evidence from industry that strongly suggests <BR>> that test plans written
by the designers are biased to 'prove' the <BR>> design. More often then
not this is not a conscious but an unconscious <BR>> bias. Someone, who
is *equally* expert on the subject who is not <BR>> invested in the design
writing a test plan will uncover more errors and <BR>> uncover them earlier.
Mike Fagan @ IBM did some compelling research on <BR>> this subject and developed
his 'inspection' process for software based <BR>> partly upon this
principle. Other Quality guru's have done similarly on <BR>> manufacturing
and other processes. <BR>> <BR>> Deems Davis #
406 <
BR>> Panel/wiring <BR>> http://deemsrv10.com/ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> lucky wrote: <BR>> <BR>> > I don't see anything wrong with the designer "writing the test", I see <BR>> > good things about that in the OBAM world. I'd add though to make the <BR>> > requirements & test plan/test procedures public so they can be "peer <BR>> > reviewed". <BR>> > <BR>> > Lucky <BR>> > <BR>> > -------------- Original message -------------- <BR>> > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <NUCKOLLSR@COX.NET><BR>> > <BR>> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote: <BR>> > > <BR>> > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Casey <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Kevin previously wrote: <BR>> > > >>
"If yo
u don't do the test then, someday you may <BR>> > > >> stumble across
that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the <BR>> > > >>
system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the <BR>> >
system <BR>> > > >> does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
<BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Good points, but what
"assumptions" do you have in mind that <BR>> > should <BR>> > >
> be tested? <BR>> > > <BR>> > > >--> Ae roElec tric-List
message posted by: "Peter Pengilly" <BR>> > > > <BR>>
> > > <BR>> > > >Try writing down a list of things your fuel
system must do. <BR>> > Write simple <BR>> > > >statements
and start with the basics - transfer fuel from the <BR>> > tank to <BR>>
> > >the carb/injector fuel inlet at xx pressure. Write only one
<BR>> > 'feature' <BR>> > > >per
state
ment. Think about what you want to happen in unusual <BR>> > situations <BR>>
> > >or when components fail. Try not to think about your design.
<BR>> > You are <BR>> > > >creating a set of "Requirements".
Include details - must be <BR>> > able to get <BR>> > > >at
fuel filter easily for servicing - as well as whole system <BR>> >
issues - <BR>> > > >system must only need servicing yearly. Define
words like <BR>> > 'easily'. <BR>> > > > <BR>> > >
>There are now two parallel paths to follow. 1) Look at your <BR>> >
design to <BR>> > > >ensure you have met all of the requirements
- be critical (not <BR>> > always <BR>> > > >easy). If the
design does not meet the requirements then change <BR>> > the <BR>> >
> >design. <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > >2) Develop
a verification or test for each requirement. If a <B
R>>
> ground test <BR>> > > >is too difficult you will now understand
any risks you are <BR>> > taking - for <BR>> > > >example
you may decide to trust the pressure gauge manufacturer's <BR>> > >
>calibration (most people do). Minimize flight testing, its <BR>> > risky
and <BR>> > > >getting good data is more difficult than you think.
The best <BR>> > way is to <BR>> > > >get someone other
than the designer to write the tests (your <BR>> > wife may <BR>> >
> >be?), but that's not always possible. <BR>> > > > <BR>>
> > >Be honest with yourself when testing. A second pair of eyes
<BR>> > often helps. <BR>> > > >Try to keep it all simple.
<BR>> > > > <BR>> > > >Yours, Pete <BR>> > >
<BR>> > > Pete, thanks for posting this. An excellent illumination <BR>>
> > of the thought processes behind set
ting r
equirements, <BR>> > > evaluating performance against those requireme
nts, a nd <BR>> > > conducting a failure mode effects analysis (FMEA)
from <BR>> > > which one (1) revises requirements and/or (2) deduces
<BR>> > > Plan-B for each necessary item that fails to perform under
<BR>> > > Plan-A. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > With respect
to development of requirements, design, testing <BR>> > > and failure
mitigation, I would encourage Listers to publish <BR>> > > their thoughts
here on the List. No doubt some folks will be <BR>> > > inclined
to evaluate your words with too much emphasis on their <BR>> > > assessment
of your lack of skill and knowledge. Expect it to happen <BR>> >
> and know that these postings should be summarily ignored. <BR>> >
> <BR>> > > However, others are willing and able to assist with
step/by/step <BR>> > > analysis of simple-id
eas wi
the W
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 09/16/06 |
John,
Allied Electric: page 830
Allied p/n Eaton p/n Mil # Type
826-1522 8501K19 MS-27407-6 (On)-On-(On)
Scott
At 01:55 AM 9/17/2006, you wrote:
>Time: 09:29:06 PM PST US
>From: "John F. Herminghaus" <catignano@tele2.it>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: 2-70 Toggle switch
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John F. Herminghaus"
><catignano@tele2.it>
>
>Does anyone know of a source for a 2-70 toggle switch ((on)-on-(on))?
>
>
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 09/16/06 |
John,
Rechecked my notes,
Allied Elect page 853, Honeywell, same switch and about half the
price, there are 2 of them on this page, 1 is mil-spec and the other is not
Scott
At 12:09 PM 9/17/2006, William Morgan wrote:
>John,
>
>Allied Electric: page 830
>Allied p/n Eaton p/n Mil # Type
>826-1522 8501K19 MS-27407-6 (On)-On-(On)
>
>Scott
>
>
>At 01:55 AM 9/17/2006, you wrote:
>>Time: 09:29:06 PM PST US
>>From: "John F. Herminghaus" <catignano@tele2.it>
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: 2-70 Toggle switch
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John F. Herminghaus"
>><catignano@tele2.it>
>>
>>Does anyone know of a source for a 2-70 toggle switch ((on)-on-(on))?
>>
>>
>>
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Systems Testing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 03:31 PM 9/17/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>Hence the peer review process. Remember, we're not talking big software
>program where our promotions/pay raises are based on how well we are
>perceived to be doing. We're talking OBAM with next to no one writing
>code or making fuel pumps from scratch. Writing your own draft test
>plan/test procedure is another chance to learn something about yourself
>and your design. Allows you to think about what you've actually done and
>find mistakes first. That can be a very satisfying party of this airplane
>experience. Peer Reviewing your "drafts" will add the sanity check. For
>us OBAM'ers, it's mostly developing system designs to use off the shelf
>components and succesfully physically installing them and ensuring they
>play well with other components.
>
>Just my two cents and I do this for a living too.
Exactly. Many moons ago, I dreaded being at the front of
the room to present meat for the grinder in a Critical
Design Review.
Years later, I began to look forward to them. It was
a chance to validate the work by fielding the most
probing questions. It became 'fun' when I realized
that irrespective of the outcome of the review, one
of two things would happen: (1) I was able to field
all the questions with solid incorporation of simple-ideas
into an invention the customer wanted and my peers
approved or (2) a bad idea was prevented from going
to production. Win-win all the way around.
It's kinda like biennial flight reviews with a new
instructor. You don't know what they might ask you
to do (my last one was under totally the hood until
200' AGL on final approach). The goal is NOT to demonstrate
repeating all the things you've done before but being
able to do something different while operating within
personal and airframe limits.
That's the real advantage of OBAM aviation. Suggest
anything you want to try with free CDR support.
This atmosphere encourages you to work the problem
from conception to installation knowing that any
biases against the "not invented here syndrome" are
likely to be spotted and avoided.
In TC aviation, we compartmentalize tasks from design
to production so tightly that nobody understands the
whole system. Better to do it all and field the
cabbages and tomatoes than have something slip by
for lack of communication.
Bob . . .
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Mic plug / PTT wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:12 PM 9/14/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
>The example on Bob's web site shows that the PTT switch is wired to the
>Ground/common on the Mic plug recepticle (in addition to the key/terminal)
>is there any reason why the PTT switch (in my case on a control
>stick/grip) can't be wired to a common ground for the control/ grip rather
>than to the mic plug common?
The push-to-talk circuit is not a potential ingress
point for noise to a radio. It's probably a safe bet
to combine PTT ground with other grounds in the stick
grip.
Bob . . .
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Moreau" <jmoreau2@cox.net>
Does anyone on the list have any experience using the stick on mounting blocks
for cable ties? I am wondering in particular if the adhesive holds up after time
and if there is any need to worry about corrosion when sticking these to metal
surfaces? They sure seem convenient but I dont want to use them if they
don't hold up or will cause corrosion problems down the road.
Thanks!
--------
Jeff Moreau
RV8A
Virginia Beach, VA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62148#62148
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
Jeff, I was thinking of using them, but one fellow I know used them on
his Lancair ES and said they started to let go after only a year or so....
I din't want to take the chance so used screws with washers, imbedded in the
prepreg with micro. As they say "Your mileage may vary!" FWIW
On 9/17/06, Jeff Moreau <jmoreau2@cox.net> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Moreau" <jmoreau2@cox.net>
>
> Does anyone on the list have any experience using the stick on mounting
> blocks for cable ties? I am wondering in particular if the adhesive holds
> up after time and if there is any need to worry about corrosion when
> sticking these to metal surfaces? They sure seem convenient but I dont want
> to use them if they don't hold up or will cause corrosion problems down the
> road.
> Thanks!
>
> --------
> Jeff Moreau
> RV8A
> Virginia Beach, VA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62148#62148
>
>
--
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, N9637M
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Bell" <brucebell74@sbcglobal.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Moreau" <jmoreau2@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:28 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Moreau" <jmoreau2@cox.net>
>
> Does anyone on the list have any experience using the stick on mounting
> blocks for cable ties? I am wondering in particular if the adhesive holds
> up after time and if there is any need to worry about corrosion when
> sticking these to metal surfaces? They sure seem convenient but I dont
> want to use them if they don't hold up or will cause corrosion problems
> down the road.
> Thanks!
>
> --------
> Jeff Moreau
> RV8A
> Virginia Beach, VA
>
Hi Jeff,
I used J-B Weld to secure a few of them. So far so good. I ran some wires
through the main spar opening on my RV-4. Only been flying a month and a
half but were installed five or so years ago. Roughed up both sides.
Regards,
Bruce Bell
Lubboc, Texas
RV-4 N23BB Ser#2888
DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62148#62148
>
>
>
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
Are you guys talking about the ones Bob Nuckolls sells that he
recommends attaching with E-6000, or something else?
Dave Morris
At 06:07 PM 9/17/2006, you wrote:
>Jeff, I was thinking of using them, but one fellow I know used
>them on his Lancair ES and said they started to let go after only a
>year or so.... I din't want to take the chance so used screws with
>washers, imbedded in the prepreg with micro. As they say "Your
>mileage may vary!" FWIW
>
>
>On 9/17/06, Jeff Moreau <<mailto:jmoreau2@cox.net>jmoreau2@cox.net> wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Moreau"
><<mailto:jmoreau2@cox.net>jmoreau2@cox.net>
>
>Does anyone on the list have any experience using the stick on
>mounting blocks for cable ties? I am wondering in particular if the
>adhesive holds up after time and if there is any need to worry about
>corrosion when sticking these to metal surfaces? They sure seem
>convenient but I dont want to use them if they don't hold up or will
>cause corrosion problems down the road.
>--
>John McMahon
>Lancair Super ES, N9637M
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Evening All,
Just as a data point. I used several of the common
stick-on type when I did a major upgrade to our
Bonanza's radio package sixteen years ago. They have
all worked just great and I have not noted any that
have failed. They were all attached to aluminum
however. I wonder if fiberglass might not gas a little
and cause them to lose their adhesiveness.
I know one data point doesn't mean much, but my
experience has been good!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, IL
LL22
--- Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
> Are you guys talking about the ones Bob Nuckolls
> sells that he
> recommends attaching with E-6000, or something else?
>
> Dave Morris
>
> At 06:07 PM 9/17/2006, you wrote:
> >Jeff, I was thinking of using them, but one
> fellow I know used
> >them on his Lancair ES and said they started to let
> go after only a
> >year or so.... I din't want to take the chance so
> used screws with
> >washers, imbedded in the prepreg with micro. As
> they say "Your
> >mileage may vary!" FWIW
> >
> >
> >
> >On 9/17/06, Jeff Moreau
> <<mailto:jmoreau2@cox.net>jmoreau2@cox.net> wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff
> Moreau"
> ><<mailto:jmoreau2@cox.net>jmoreau2@cox.net>
> >
> >Does anyone on the list have any experience using
> the stick on
> >mounting blocks for cable ties? I am wondering in
> particular if the
> >adhesive holds up after time and if there is any
> need to worry about
> >corrosion when sticking these to metal surfaces?
> They sure seem
> >convenient but I dont want to use them if they
> don't hold up or will
> >cause corrosion problems down the road.
> >--
> >John McMahon
> >Lancair Super ES, N9637M
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
I use these in my occupation and as with everything else, prep is the
key. make sure the area is clean and dry. Bare aluminum? Clean the
immediate area with MEK. Painted? Clean with isopropyl alcohol before
applying the patch.
On 09/17/2006 6:45:28 PM, OldBob Siegfried (oldbob@beechowners.com)
wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried
> <oldbob@beechowners.com>
>
> Good Evening All,
>
> Just as a data point. I used several of the common
> stick-on type when I did a major upgrade to our
> Bonanza's radio package sixteen years ago. They have
> all worked just great and I have not noted any that
> have failed. They were all attached to aluminum
> however. I wonder if fiberglass might not gas a little
> and cause them to lose their adhesiveness.
>
> I know one data point doesn't
> mean much, but my
> experience has been good!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> Stearman N3977A
> Downers Grove, IL
> LL22
>
> --- Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
> > <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
> >
> > Are you guys talking about the ones Bob Nuckolls
> > sells that he
> > recommends attaching with E-6000, or something else?
> >
> > Dave Morris
> >
> > At 06:07 PM 9/17/2006, you wrote:
> > >Jeff, I was thinking of using them, but one
> > fellow I know used
> > >them on his Lancair ES and said they started to let
>
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
I'll add one more comment to this thread. I used quite a few of the
stick on mounting blocks. The ones I used also have two holes for
mounting. After sticking them down, I drilled out most of them and
secured them with 1/8" pop rivets. I don't expect to experience any
failures. :)
Bob W.
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:28:26 -0700
"Jeff Moreau" <jmoreau2@cox.net> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Moreau" <jmoreau2@cox.net>
>
> Does anyone on the list have any experience using the stick on mounting blocks
for cable ties? I am wondering in particular if the adhesive holds up after
time and if there is any need to worry about corrosion when sticking these to
metal surfaces? They sure seem convenient but I dont want to use them if they
don't hold up or will cause corrosion problems down the road.
> Thanks!
>
> --------
> Jeff Moreau
> RV8A
> Virginia Beach, VA
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62148#62148
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (first engine start 1/7/06)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
I took a different tack, probably overkill, but easy , and I think very
reliable. I cut multiple ~1" squares of 2-3 ply glass and screwed the blocks to
them from the back. Then I applied the roughened squares to the fiberglass with
structural Epoxy. They aren't going anywhere. LRE
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
Jeff;
The long term reliability of these anchors depends, as with most things,
on which ones you buy. The type that are secured with epoxy of some
sort, are reasonably long term reliable, as are the ones noted by Bob
White, if you add the rivets as he suggests. The ones however which are
secured with adhesive foam tape are prone to rapid deterioration and
bond failure if exposed to elevated temperature or petroleum product
contamination or simply excessive age. Even within this foam tape group
there are large variations in quality, largely based on brand. So you
see, the answer to your question is really, "it depends". There are many
products sold which fit the description you provided, and some work much
better than others. I have not come across an issue with corrosion with
any of these products, but, as mentioned by others, preparation is
important, as is the specific adhesive used by the brand you choose to
buy. All are not created equal.
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Moreau" <jmoreau2@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 6:28 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Moreau"
<jmoreau2@cox.net>
>
> Does anyone on the list have any experience using the stick on
mounting blocks for cable ties? I am wondering in particular if the
adhesive holds up after time and if there is any need to worry about
corrosion when sticking these to metal surfaces? They sure seem
convenient but I dont want to use them if they don't hold up or will
cause corrosion problems down the road.
> Thanks!
>
> --------
> Jeff Moreau
> RV8A
> Virginia Beach, VA
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62148#62148
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
Q uestion, if you have these mounts less the tape, would Bob's goop
work.
I've used it to glue stuff to a shower wall & it was a bear to remove
Harold, RV9A
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Hello Jeff
"Does anyone on the list have any experience using the stick on mounting
blocks for cable ties?"
I would not trust them.
My favorite way to deal with getting cable blocks or similar hose blocks
stuck, is to remove sticky back and very aggressive sand with 60 grit the
mounting face, and where it is getting stuck to, if on a composite I use
80 grit. With aluminium go as course as you dare. I get stuck with 4
minute JB Weld (Epoxy), then try and get at least 2 sides covered with 1
ply BID (BiDirectional cloth, Spruce sells it under Rutan Supplies), I
like using Redux 420, very expensive and a bit hard to find. T-88 would
probably work OK and Spruce sells it. After JB is cured, scuff sand
plastic and what you want to attach to, wet out, and fill transition with
your epoxy and with flox mixed in. Easy way to apply BID is to mark a
piece of Vis-queen the size you want, flip it over, clean off Slip with
alcohol (slip is talc that is on plastic sheeting that prevents it from
sticking together) lay on a piece of BID, and use a old credit card,
playing card, or rubber squeegee to wet out BID and remove excess. Now cut
on line, the lines will become visible once wet out, and apply with the
plastic still on. The plastic will give the BID dimensional stability.
Then once in place push it down, could use a acid brush or china bristle
brush and remove plastic.
I just did 6 fuel line pads tonight.
Sand 6 pads and target area / a few minutes
Mix JB / a few minutes
Butter 6 pads and install / a few minutes
By the time the JB cured I had the Redux mixed and 12 plies of BID wet out
and cut
Ron Parigoris
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Temperature calibration..... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Boiling water is dead accurate at 220F if your within 1000ft of sea
level.
All of my Dynon probes were within a degree or 2.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Baker
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:06 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Temperature calibration.....
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
Anyone have any unique ways to accomplish a calibration of a CHT
sender/gauge at, say, 400F. I know about Tempilsticks and Tempilaq and
others of that ilk, plus the NIST certified multimeteres (IR and
contact) but wondered if there was something else out there I might have
missed....read that as cheap. Tho, Tempil is about as cheap as you can
get.....
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
Message 24
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Temperature calibration..... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
Unless you are on a different planet than the rest of us, water boils at
212 sea level.
Dick
Do not archive
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>Boiling water is dead accurate at 220F if your within 1000ft of sea
>level.
>
>All of my Dynon probes were within a degree or 2.
>
>Frank
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
>Baker
>Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:06 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Temperature calibration.....
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
>
>Anyone have any unique ways to accomplish a calibration of a CHT
>sender/gauge at, say, 400F. I know about Tempilsticks and Tempilaq and
>others of that ilk, plus the NIST certified multimeteres (IR and
>contact) but wondered if there was something else out there I might have
>missed....read that as cheap. Tho, Tempil is about as cheap as you can
>get.....
>
>Jim Baker
>580.788.2779
>Elmore City, OK
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
Message 25
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I must have upset Bob N. with one of my questions of a question. So here
goes again. During the daisy chain from the shields of the mic wires to the
ground wire (all on the radio end of the wires) what is the best way to tie
the pig tail into the ground wire coming from the aircraft ground? No I'm
not using a ground wire with a shield. The diagram shows the shields
attaching to the ground wire from the aircraft ground pin. I'm using d-subs.
Thanks
Dennis
Message 26
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Temperature calibration..... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Uh- - - don't you mean 212 degrees F ???????
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:16 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Temperature calibration.....
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
<frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> Boiling water is dead accurate at 220F if your within 1000ft of sea
> level.
>
> All of my Dynon probes were within a degree or 2.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
> Baker
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:06 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Temperature calibration.....
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
>
> Anyone have any unique ways to accomplish a calibration of a CHT
> sender/gauge at, say, 400F. I know about Tempilsticks and Tempilaq and
> others of that ilk, plus the NIST certified multimeteres (IR and
> contact) but wondered if there was something else out there I might have
> missed....read that as cheap. Tho, Tempil is about as cheap as you can
> get.....
>
> Jim Baker
> 580.788.2779
> Elmore City, OK
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|